Guns on campus: More danger or more security? 3 letters

Your article on the potential gun ban for concealed-carry permittees at Colorado State University is illustrative of the lack of understanding by people in positions of authority.

The anti-gun crowd has not learned the lessons of Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, Columbine and dozens of other schools and churches across our nation. They all seem to buy into the belief that the mere presence of a firearm in public poses a danger to the public. In reality, that weapon — in the hands of a law-abiding, responsible, trained citizen — actually is a safety net for anyone in the immediate vicinity.

The Board of Governors for the CSU system has a sworn obligation to protect the students and faculty at all their campuses and it would behoove them to rethink any decisions to ban concealed carry on their
property.

David Fessenden, Aurora

This letter was published in the Dec. 8 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

The only reason to carry a pistol is because you intend to kill another human being. The only people who are trained to use a pistol who might be on a college campus are security or law enforcement personnel with firearms licenses. It is their job to ensure safety. It is the students’ job to get an education. Do you really believe a student would be able to “save the day” in an unexpected, chaotic situation of someone with a gun who is out of control?

Furthermore, one must wonder what type of person is the student who would want to bring a gun to school. What happens the first time a student gets angry at their adviser, for example, who doesn’t accept their master’s thesis, or an athlete who thinks he was unfairly removed from the team, and that student reaches for a concealed weapon? What if your child happens to be coming down the path at the same time the gun goes off?

Students carrying guns on campus create an environment that is unsafe for everyone — other students, faculty, staff and visitors.

Carole Beck, Westminster

This letter was published in the Dec. 8 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I think that people who feel the need to carry a concealed weapon are paranoid. I don’t think paranoid people should be carrying concealed weapons, especially on campus. Owning and carrying are separate issues. Unless you are in the law enforcement profession, the only property you need to defend, according to Colorado law, is the personal property you feel is being threatened inside your home. Let’s leave our guns there.

Devron Campbell, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 8 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

When was the last time a person with a permit went beserk and shot people??

somedude

I defy anyone to find an example of a concealed carry permit holder causing any problems with their firearm on the CSU campuses since 2003 when CSU decided to allow carry permit holders (who have to be 21 or over among other requirements) to exercise their rights on campus.Frankly, anyone who wants to use a gun to cause a problem or hurt someone will not be stopped by this policy. They do however know that their victims will be disarmed just as they were at Virginia Tech, the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NIU, and most other mass shootings.Of course, statistically, concealed carry permit holders are only slightly more law-abiding than law enforcement officers, so obviously, they can't be trusted according to the university.

Robtf777

Here's a question: Do you think that those who are looking down the wrong end of a gun barrel….are…at that moment….wishing that they never listened to the anti-gun idiots?Read the paper. Crime happens. Everyday. Someone is going to be robbed, raped, and murdered in the next 24 hours. That's a guaranty.What the liberal anti-gun nuts want to do is to have ALL potential victims and nearby witnesses UNARMED….so that the ARMED criminals can get away with…..SHOOTING YOU TO DEATH. The chances of you being a victim of a felony in which you or the loved one with you are held up at gunpoint, assaulted, raped, beaten, and left to die….may or may not be all that good…..but SOMEONE…in fact, a LOT of someones…a lot of UNARMED someones…WILL be assaulted, robbed, raped, AND killed in the next year.Don't be the next person dying in the street to suddenly wonder: I'm dying. I was shot and I'm dying. I was UNARMED and I was shot and I am dying. Gee, I wonder if the situation that DID occur…wouldn't have…if I had been armed? I wonder if I had had a gun, I would be going home to my spouse and kids…instead of them going to my funeral.Criminals who HAVE GUNS….HAVE GUNS…..and the cop at the doughnut shop a mile away ain't gonna change that fact.

IRUNMAN

Yikes, for someone who is a “Christian”, you sure know how to judge and ridicule.

WWJD? Carry a gun?

IronmanCarmichael

Why is it the self-professed Christians who keep telling us we all need to go around packing heat because we can't trust our fellow man? (I wonder if Jesus on the cross thought, Damn, this is what I get for telling the Apostles to put away their swords.)

theoldgrouch

Good question, Ironman,Brings to mind the question as to why is it the self-professed Christians are always whining, moaning, and sniveling about how everyone is out to try to “silence them”, or otherwise “do them harm” in some way. Wholesale persecution complex supplied free, with each purchase of the King James Bible, maybe?

seejay

Yup, it’s the GUNS!
Not the majority black and brown people shooting folks with them, whom our “institutions of higher learning” say we’re treating badly….-(no actual examples of their poor treatment are ever given).
Today’s universities say guns are the culprit, but in NYC last year, 90% of all handgun violence was committed by black or brown males…! Maybe, instead of outlawing Constitutionally Protected guns, we should consider outlawing black and brown males..?

Kevin Black

Lakewood, Washington. Four police officers, trained in the use of guns for self protection and for protecting others can't keep a lone gunman from killing all of them. And some untrained yahoo with a Rambo complex is going to protect the rest of us from criminals who HAVE GUNS….HAVE GUNS…..how?Lakewood, Washington has put to rest…forever!…the argument that carrying a gun is protection against a determined killer.

Noggindog

“WWJD? Carry a gun?” In point of fact, Jesus did instruct his disciples to carry weapons when he sent them out to spread the Gospel. Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV) Two swords among a dozen men is not enough for a rebellion, which is probably what Peter (who probably offered the two swords) had in mind. It probably WAS enough to deter bandits, who prefer unarmed victims, as they do today. Some people point to Jesus later comments which took place during his arrest, when a disciple pulled a sword and cut off the ear of a servant in the arresting mob. Jesus instructed that disciple to put his sword away, and quoted Jewish law, “whoever uses a sword will die by the sword.” This was probably nothing more than Jesus telling his disciple, “Hey, if you start killing people, you will be executed with me. I’m here for the purpose of dying for mankind. You have a different job, which is spreading the Gospel. Put your sword away.”So…. Would Jesus carry a gun today? Probably not. He was not murdered by bandits, and He managed to confuse and befuddle His enemies until the time for his crucifixion had come. Would he tell his disciples to carry guns? There is a good argument that He would have instructed his disciples to be ready to defend themselves if they were going somewhere risky to spread the Gospel, yes.

Noggindog

Sunday, December 9, 2007: a gunman attacked churchgoers in Colorado Springs, at New Life Church, killing 4 and wounding 5 others. A woman, Jeanne Assam, was a “volunteer security guard” and was armed, and she shot and killed the assailant. I presume from this that Colorado Springs, Colorado “has put to rest…forever!…the argument that carrying a gun is (not) protection against a determined killer.” Oh, you disagree? What a shocker! I guess you anti-gun zealots only like the stories that support your arguments? I suppose is antibiotics failed to save one patient with an infection, that would “put to rest forever the argument that antibiotics save lives?”Four police officers killed in a gun battle is indeed a tragedy. How many do you suppose that gunman could have killed if they were all unarmed? In the story I cite, there were 15-20 armed people among some 7,000 people in and around that church. Still, with so few among so many, the critical fact turned out to be that one person, armed, courageous, and with sufficient training, saved the day… too late for 4 victims, but surely just in time for many, many more. And, Kevin, this is not such an unusual story. If you bother to do ANY research before you pop off with more “putting arguments to bed” letters, you will find that defensive use of guns by citizens happens everyday in this country. Responsible research shows that when faced with violent crime, your BEST chance of walking away uninjured occurs when you defend yourself with a firearm. That’s a fact.

illegalhater

anti- gun claque, try and think of it in these terms…. what if we passed a Law the NO ONE in this country is allowed to have a gun of any kind , not even the police wouldn't that mean that there is NO WAY gun violence could occur and everyone is now SAFE ????? what are you thoughts on this ???

Noggindog

Christians are telling you to pack heat because you can’t trust people? Hmmm… why do I doubt that? I suspect some Christians might be telling you that THEY choose to carry a weapon because they know there are bad people out there who might try to hurt them and their families… but they probably don’t worry to much about whether YOU are packing or not.Interestingly, the debate at CSU did not come up because Christians are trying to tell more people to carry. It came up because LIBERALS and LEFTISTS (some of whom are also “self-professed Christians”) DON’T TRUST THEIR FELLOW MAN to carry guns on campus, even though those with concealed carry permits have clean criminal records, and have qualified to use those weapons. Talk about turning an argument on it’s head…

toohip

When was the last time a person with a concealed gun, stopped a mass killer like at Virginia Tech? The “permit' doesn't legitimize anything. The shooter at Virginia Tech could of gotten a permit to carry, so it's not a catch all to filter probable people who will use a gun illegally.

somedude

The last time that happened was at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs (I believe a year ago). At least that was the last one where it was an intended mass shooting, and not just armed robbery, home invasion, etc.

toohip

Where are all the examples and stories of people who carry concealed guns legally, stopping some person from shooting another person illegally? They don't exist, because they exist strictly in the mind of the cowboy-types who believe if they had been there and they were packing and they got the jump on this guy – they would of stopped him before he stopped them. It's pure fantasy. There are plenty of people who have conealed carry permits and carry concealed guns, we just don't see them. So where are all these cowboys stopping these mass shooters? The Post Editorial is correct in pointing out, first, there just isn't tha many people, let alone students, who want a concealed carry permit and will carry a firearm concealed at all times. So that reduces by reality the number of these cowboy-wannabes who just might encounter one of these rare shooters. Unless you pass a law as some cities have tried, to force people to carry, can you involuntarily raise the number of these potential cowboys.Then there's the reverse factor that people with guns, carry them to kill other people, intentionally or unintentionally. It's the intentionally that is important here. The shooter at Va. Tech intentionally carried a gun to kill people. As Carole Beck points out, people who carry guns for self-defense, end up using them illegally or on themselves. The number one use of firearms in a household for self-defense – is use of the firearm on the owner (suicide) or a family member (homicide). The rare story of a home owner who used a gun in legitmate application of defending themselves from a intruder ALSO with a gun bent on doing harm – is almost non-existant. We got to stop watching movies and TV and start accept reality as the real environment in which we live.

somedude

Re: non-existent incidents: Even studies done by the government during the Clinton era estimated that US citizens used firearms to defend themselves, others, or property anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million times a year. You don’t see it on the 10pm news, it’s buried in the back of the paper because it happens quite often.

Your assertions about the number one use of firearms in a home is a complete lie put forth by citizen disarmament traitors, based on a disproven study originally based on looking only at incidents where a person was killed with a firearm. Many times homeowners stop home invasions simply by brandishing the firearm, not even firing a shot.

By the way, concealed carry permit holders are five times less likely to be arrested for a crime and seven times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime than non-permit holders. This puts them at only slightly more law-abiding than police officers. Carole Beck’s and your hoblophobic fantasy of well-intentioned carry permit holders robbing convenience stores, accidentally shooting puppies and children, and shooting themselves is another blatant calculated lie.

I believe you are the one that needs to accept reality as the environment which we live.

Anonymous

I thought I asked that very question in another post–still waiting for an answer, though.

somedude

Why is it all of the self-professed Progressives always assume everyone who believes in individual rights is a die-hard Christian?

somedude

So you cherry pick one example where the victims didn't have time to defend themselves. No one in that terrible situation would have been able to defend themselves. However, we've seen a lot of situations where people were able to defend themselves and others. Sometimes they were cops, sometimes they were regular citizens who were legally armed. Did you forget what happened at the New Life Church in Co Springs? The mall in Utah?And can you try attacking the message instead of the messenger? Hoplophobics always attack the people instead of their opinions when they know their arguments are baseless and false.

catanza2

sounds good to me

Bebop

Please stop using the word Cowboy you use that term trying to make it a derogatory term which it is not. You use that term because you have no credible argument to go on. If you open your eyes and look you will see that there are people who have saved themselves, their families, or complete strangers by using a firearm to defend themselves or the other people. Just because you have not been spoon feed the lives saved by guns facts by the Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media (which this paper is a part of) doesn't mean that they do not exist. Look at websites or if you want harder evidence look at “American Rifleman” Every issue they share multiple examples of people who have used the gun is self-defense. The other reason you don't hear a lot about it is because sometimes something happens the CCW holder pulls the gun and the criminal goes away because they don't want to get shot. Carole Beck is an uninformed anti-gun nut. Using facts from the government it is easy to see that cars cause more deaths in a given year then guns do in 5. Now I don't want you to freak out but I carry a Gun with me EVERY day sometimes concealed sometimes out in the open. I have never shot myself, or anyone around me and guess what the gun has NEVER jumped out of its holster and started shooting people all the time I am running behind it trying to stop it. It shouldn't surprise you that during the time I have carried a gun 2+ years now I have been happy, mad, sad, angry and yet I have never wanted to pull out the gun and kill anyone for no reason. The only reason this gun leaves it's holster is for cleaning, target practice (at a range), or (god forbid) anyone tries to kill or seriously injure me or anyone around me. I will be honest with you if the gun comes out in the latter situation I will shoot to kill the person who is threatening me but by the time that happens he has made my decision for me it is his life or mine and I will not forfeit my life without a fight. If you want to then that is your choice, I do not believe that you should make that choice for me. I do live in reality that is why I carry a gun with me at all times because I never know when I may have to defend my life or the life of my family. When you find this world of flowers, bunnies, rainbows, and sunshine give me a call I will try to talk you down off of your drug trip.I live by these words “It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six” it is your choice not to.

Old Fart

Ms. Beck, how many advisors have been shot on CSU campuses since 2003 when students were allowed to start carry concealed?
Mr. Campbell, a person carries to protect their life and those around them, not to protect property.

These are from just one website, there are hundreds of examples of guns saving lives and stopping crimes if you take the time to look.
Maybe some of these criminal were stopped before they could do a mass killing. We will never know, will we.
A large number of crimes are stopped with out ever firing a shot, just the showing or drawing of the weapon is enough to stop the bad guy.
The number one use of firearms in the home is not to commit suicide or homicide, as you claim. Do a little research, the results may surprise you.

Banning all handguns has certainly worked for NYC, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. hasn’t it.

The average Concealed Carry permit holder practices 2-4 times more often that the average law enforcement officer. The average LEO only shoot his weapon twice a year, to maintain their qualification.

Maybe someone at VT, Ft Hood, Columbine, the various malls, or the Post Offices couldn’t have prevented the killing, but then again, maybe a lot fewer people might have been killed too.

The internet is a wonderful thing, you can find out all sorts of things if you take the time to look.

Anonymous

Washington, D.C., is, of course, the place at which the Supreme Court recently upheld both the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment, by overturning the Statute banning ownership of handguns. But, confiscatory Statutes are not really the issue here, as the topic is that of a REGULATION on a campus, something which – so far anyway – the Supreme Court has NOT seen fit to rule against.

Speaking personally, I find the idea that anyone and everyone with a permit should be able to stroll into the classroom, six-shooter prominently slung at the hip, rather ludicrous to say the least. This IS, after all, the 21ST CENTURY. And, while Wyatt Earp may well be the subject of the day’s history lesson, nevertheless he, as with the rest of the old-time gunslingers, is a figure from a different age, and a decidedly different social structure.

Having “carried”, both with and without a Badge in my lifetime, I am fully well aware of the rationale FOR “carrying”, and just as aware of the reasons for REGULATING areas in which such carrying is limited to duly Warranted Peace Officers, rather than left wide open to any and all. And, among what are, perhaps, the best reasons for such REGULATIONS is the need for some distinction between those carrying “legally” – and with open purpose, such as Security – and those who carry without benefit of the legal niceties of permit, and/or with “illegal” intentions for use.

The CSU Regulation might well have been one of perfectly sound and sensible establishment at the time carry permits were made available in Colorado; as, if memory serves, provisions are in the Statutes of the State specifiying exclusions from the right of those NOT Warranted Peace Officers to carry concealed weapons, including schools. But . . . ! That would take us back to 2003 – some 6 years ago – and posit a Regulation put into effect at the time of the inception of general carry permits.

Now, however, some 6 years AFTER the logical time and opportunity to take advantage of exclusions, we are hearing that there is to be a Regulation. True, the Regents have the Statutory right to pass and enforce such Regulation. But, “preventive action” today for something that has not been a problem in all the time no such preventive has been in place does appear to be somewhat less than either intelligent foresight or calm and reasoned action to take advantage of available Regulatory potentials when they were made available.

One might wish that the Regents spent their time, as well as their efforts and energy, on the more important problems, such as the ever-rising costs of education etc. BUT! They still do have the right to pass Regulations, too.

Bebop

I disagree with your idea that “everyone with a permit should be able to stroll into the classroom, six-shooter prominently slung at the hip, rather ludicrous”. In my opinion I would love to see the opposite I however would never force anyone to carry a firearm. I also disagree with the idea of permits but that is somewhat off topic. Maybe this is the point where I have to beg. PLEASE people stop comparing someone who carries a gun as cowboys or Wyatt Earp’s. People who do this make this wild accusation because they have no evidence to stand on because none exists.
Let’s look at examples where no gun zones, or as I like to call them “Criminal safe zones”, worked very well in favor of the criminal.
April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech Campus – Gun Free Zone – Result 32 Killed (He had to kill himself before the shooting stopped)
April 20, 1999 Columbine High School – Gun Free Zone – Result 12 Killed (They killed themselves before the shooting stopped)
Between 1986 and 1997 US Postal Service buildings throughout the US – Gun Free Zones – Result 40 people killed (again some of these people also had to kill themselves before the shooting stopped)
So I will turn the liberal argument against them “If only it would save one life wouldn’t it be worth it”. In this case I would say yes it would be worth it. You may of had people still killed but I doubt you would have 84 people dead right now because no one was able to act to defend themselves or other people.
It is clear to me and many other people that Gun free zones do not keep people from bringing guns there. If you believe that you live in a fantasy world. Criminals break the law that is why they are called criminals the only thing you do if you don’t allow people to carry in a place is let them know that it is very unlikely that they will be stopped while they are killing people.

As far as CSU being able to regulate what happens on their campus. In my opinion this they should not be able to regulate. In your private business or residence you decide to now allow people to carry that is your choice as the owner of said property. However CSU receives state funding therefore I believe they should have to follow state law in situations like this.

Anonymous

When reading all the pro-gun postings, it does seem as if that idea appears to prevail as being not only “right and proper”, but even “necessary for self protection”. For myself, I consider that to be altogether too much of never having grown up from – or out of – the juvenalia of playing “Cowboys and Indians”. I was born here 80 years ago; and raised here, in Cowtown Capital, Cowlorado, so I tend to express some things in ways that are familiar to me. The “Wild West” still had a great hold on local culture in some ways – and certainly on the portrayal of “life on the frontier” as was popular in the movies, and as represented by the Hollywood stardom – and great local popularity – of Tom Mix, Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, etc., etc. The current panic over the CSU – and other – Regulation(s), which seems to see an armed criminal – or gang of armed criminals – around every corner, just waiting to massacre a group of poor, innocent, defenceless settlers; or hijack the stagecoach on its way to Boulder; or otherwise appears to be obsessed with the thought that the surroundings are full of armed criminals, is, to me, simply a sign of immaturity. It’s playing “cowboy” some decades beyond the time for that.

Yes, of course, the Regulation(s) – or what you call “Gun free zones” – do not, in and of themselves, “keep people from bringing guns there”. And of course, people are called “criminals” because they “break the law” and “commit crime(s)”. But, in simple point of fact, neither does merely carrying a concealed – or wide open – weapon actually prevent all that much crime from being committed. The assertion that it does doesn’t have a firm foundation. Rather, it rests on the speculation that, since having a weapon handy SHOULD manage to “deter” someone else from using his/her weapon, it therefore does so. And, it completely ignores the rather grim reality of such things as “suicide by Cop”, among other non-deterred uses of weapons by those who intend to use them.

You, yourself, sum up the rather absurd speculations when you say: “You may have had people still killed; but I doubt you would have 84 people dead . . .etc.” “May have had”, and “I doubt” are not evidence; and neither are they at all convincing argument. And, unfortunately, the majority of the arguments ranting against the CSU Regulation – and/or regulation(s) in general – are, really, nothing more than of the “may have”, or “may not have”, quality.

Which brings us to another basic. Way back in time, some 72 years ago now, I had Junior NRA weapons training, and learned firearms safety. Then, as NOW, the very first rules one learned were, simply: EVERY weapon is ALWAYS LOADED, and is ALWAYS to be treated as such. NEVER point a weapon unless you intend to fire it; and, when it is a matter of pointing your weapon at ANY living being, NEVER fire it unless you intend to kill. Considering these as THE FUNDAMENTALS of ALL use of firearms, the question today is, simply, WHY do YOU need a weapon? And, WHY do YOU need to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise?

Those are questions that do not have generalized answers. That somewhere else, somehow, someone else manages to “prevent” crime, or otherwise has substantial reason and purpose for carrying a weapon, doesn’t cut the mustard. And, YOUR personal answer is NOT sufficient justification for generalizations concerning others, either. YOU may very well NOT be “playing cowboy”. BUT! That doesn’t mean that ANYONE else isn’t.

Now, to keep the record straight. CSU’s state funding has nothing to do with it. And, they are following state law in the matter. Your so-called “gun-free zones” are in the State Statutes, including schools, with certain parts of Government – such as Boards of Regents – fully empowered to declare their school to be one. And, like it or not, were I carrying, it is MY responsibility to abide by the Regulation, or be lawfully excepted from it.

Bebop

Then I think you are fooling yourself into believing the anti-gun hype that people who have guns are playing cowboys and Indians and that it will be high noon all the time and everyday there will be a shootout at the O.K. corral. I guess you could make that assumption if you ignored ALL of the facts. Those would be that people who have CHP’s are less likely to break the law than police officers. I have already made my point, in my opinion people who use words like cowboys to describe people who carry guns do so because they do not have a good argument and you have yet to prove me wrong.

I never said that carrying a gun would prevent crimes from being committed you either misread something I said or are trying to create a straw man argument to try to attach because you don’t have a good argument. Look at this rationally though. You are a criminal set on shooting as many people as possible where are you going to go to do that. Someplace where someone might have a gun and be able to stop you or someplace that you know doesn’t allow guns. I carry to protect me and my families lives. Ah yes, so according you to because someone might be h#$% bent on shooting me if I have a gun or not I should not be able to defend myself. I am glad to know that you think the life of the person trying to kill me is more important than mine.

Of course I can’t be sure, don’t be ridiculous. We will never know if allowing people to have guns in the cases I specified would have stopped or lessened the number of people killed. We would have to be able to study a parallel universe where that situation happened and people where allowed to carry. On top of that there are just too many other variables to take into account. You are set on saying, nope you can’t defend yourself in public no matter what. You have to wait for the elite people, that some other person decided they were worthy enough to defend your life, to show up. Never mind the fact that it could take them 20+ min to show up, meanwhile someone who was allowed to carry could have ended it in a few seconds. That 20 min doesn’t even take into account the amount of time it would take them to assess the situation and infiltrate and take control of the situation. I want to give people the choice, if you don’t want to carry a weapon fine then don’t. Don’t take away the ability for people who do want to.

I appreciate you treating me like a 5 year old who has never seen a gun. I really needed that reminder on firearms safety, wow what would I have done without you. Why do I need a weapon, ah yes let us just give all the power to the state to control whatever the heck they want. Oh and they can do it by force thanks to you because we no longer have the ability to defend ourselves from a common thug much less the government. You don’t need a car, you don’t need a cell phone, you don’t need a (fill in the blank). It is a free country I and have the right to buy whatever I want with the money I earned as do you. Your argument is emotional and silly.

Very well you don’t think my point was made that people carrying guns aren’t cowboys. You made the assertion that they are. You PROVE it. I will answer it for you, you can’t. So get off the ‘they are cowboys’ thing already and move on to something with substance. Which you have also yet to supply.

This last part is a policy disagreement. I think that they state should not be allowed to say that you can’t carry a firearm in “x” place. That goes for schools, grade or higher. If I had the ability I would introduce a bill to change the law to allow people to carry anywhere they wanted unless it is a private business or home, then the owner of said property can make that choice. You take one dime of state or federal funding you fall under the rules of the state which starts with the states (or federal) constitution which if you read it only limits the ability of someone to carry concealed. So because CSU can control the concelability of the firearm if I wear it in the open I am not breaking state or CSU law and according to you CSU can’t control that. You know what I think I could live with that.

theoldgrouch

Why is it that the self-styled “die-hard Christians” are so vehemently AGAINST the individual rights of a woman to control her own reproductive system? And why is it these same self-styled Christians always assume that professsed Progressives are NOT Chirstians also?Or better yet, what do political labels have to do with being Christian in the first place?God IS NOT a Republican; nor is he a Democrat.

Anonymous

Calling a CCW carrier a cowboy is a compliment; http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/Cowboy.Code.html
The only violation modern carriers make is the first, the rest should calm those fearful of an armed cowboy in their midst.
Citizens who abide by the law are the definition of a CCW carrier. Folks who write of someone shooting another person over a parking spot, barking dog, or bad grades, is projecting their shortcomings upon someone else.

Where are all the news stories of a CCW carrier who goes postal for any reason whatsoever? One story would begin a death knell for CCW laws.

IronmanCarmichael

Since on other topics Robtf777 has identified himself as a Christian, I felt on fairly safe ground to respond to his post as such. I don't recall, however, ever referring to myself as a Progressive. I will grant, though, that I'd love to assume that all die-hard Christians believed in individual rights. Realistically, I know they believe in no such thing, least of all the right of the individual not to be Christian or embrace Christian dogma. (Check Larry Bell on that one.)And much as I do try to avoid generalizing, Christians tend to be the ones who have a problem with the distribution of condoms on campus, claiming that's tantamount to telling the students to go have sex. I don't know about you, but I'd feel a lot safer on a campus where the students were carrying around condoms instead of guns.

IronmanCarmichael

That's essentially arguing that as long as there are people who aren't going to obey the laws, why bother having laws in the first place?

phornbein

But she was a security guard! What I find interesting is that a church needs a security guard.

walter

On March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, a self-proclaimed survivalist, killed his mother at their family home, beginning a shooting rampage that stretched across 24 miles. By the time McLendon took his own life in the midst of a police shootout at a factory where he had previously worked, he had shot four more relatives, including his 74-year-old grandmother, and five strangers, including the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff's deputy. McLendon had a concealed handgun permit for two handguns. Police later found at the home he shared with his mother numerous how-to DVDs on committing acts of violence.

Kevin Black

No one at Columbine, at Fort Hood, at Virginia Tech and at far too many places didn't have time to protect themselves. The 2 victims killed in the parking lot at New Life didn't have time to protect themselves nor did the victims of the same gunman in Arvada. The only reason that Ms. Asam had a chance to protect herself was that she had some warning. Ms. Asam's actions are the outlier, i.e. not the norm, when it comes to mass shootings. When 4 police officers can be gunned down because they are 'suprised', what do you think is going to happen when an untrained individual faces the same situation? They'll be just as dead.As to attacking the message and not the messenger, I do not recall saying anything about the poster. I did attack his message. You should look to the log in your own eye.

theoldgrouch

I've forgotten how many postings I have previously written affirming the fundamental rights under the 2nd Amendment. I was making an observation concerning a period some 75 years, or so, ago when this was still very much in the “Old Wild West” mode of expression, which mode of expression became very much imbedded in the local Unconscious, and still pops up regularly, with such as Cheyenne Frontier Days, etc. I have never been “fooled into believing” what you call anti-gun hype. As you would know were you to read what I write, and attempt to comprehend what is written, rather than just get all petulantly insulted by what you don't seem to want to understand.. That the element – albeit many times more unconscious than conscious – of vestigal “Cowboys and indians” exists in the minds of many – both those who carry, and those who do not – is observable any time you go out to the National Western Stock Show, among other events that try to recapture some of the “Old Wild West” ethos, spirt, and presentation. That such a vestige of thought/emotion may also be ascribed to some of the rather over-demonstrative responses to positions on “gun control”, or “firearms regulation” items, is again, observable. And it is merely a fact of observance of such response(s), not an insult in any way, to note the presence of something that does have unique background in the local culture. For myself, I always had problems with the “game”, since I'm not only NOT a “cowboy” to begin with, I'm partly descended from the “other side” But that 's just a side issue.I did ask why you felt the need for a weapon. You have answered above. That's all there really is to that. Your reasons for something are yours. Just as other people's reasons for not having or wanting personally, or not having or wanting others to have or not have, are theirs. In some cases, reasons may be open to discussion, or to opposition. But, merely asking for a reason is a simple part of dialogue, from which one may decide to continue, or call a halt to discussion. As to the individual concept of “need”, that too is a part of discussion, which may lead to further exploration/expostion, or may be the place to cease discussion, as “need” is, again, not universal or absolute, but rather a personal matter of feelings. You don't know what I “need”, unless I state what it is, anymore than anyone else knows your “need” unless you are willing to state it.. I disagree with your statements concerning what I don't “need”, since they come merely from your own imagination; but, that's completely beside the point.You are taking a presentation on a very generalized observation, concerning a form of response to cultural uniqueness, far, Far, FAR too personally, and merely “insulting” yourself; since I have never said that anyone “IS a cowboy”, whether he, or she, carries or not. Besides which, I don't consider the designation “cowboy” to be insulting in the first place. As to “substance”, sonny, some 45+ years experience as a headshrinker has given me sufficient “substance” in the sociological/psychological observations I make.As to your last paragraph: At one time, Colorado was – more or less, ipso facto (without specific Statute) an “open carry” State. And, at that time, Yes. You would not have been “breaking any law” by coming onto the CSU campus with your six-shooter on your hip. (Though I wouldn't have recommended such behavior, since County Sheriffs were not known to be much in favor of it; and could hassle one – with the likes of “Distrubing the Peace”, and such Ordinances – if they were of a mind to; as a good many were.) However, it is not “according to me” that such is not the case today. Rather, it is according to subsequent Statutes, setting up the system of concealed carry of weapons, and those parts of the Statutes pertaining to what you call “gun-free zones”, especially schools. And, that's what you have to “live with” today, like it or not.So, get your State Rep, or Senator, to do what you want done to change matters. I have strong doubts any such bill would pass the Legislature today; but, nothing is stopping you from trying. And, additionally, there is always the route of Petition-Amendment/Ballot-Initiative.As to my remarks about gun safety: Again, I was speaking for myself. I take for granted that anyone carrying with a permit has similar background – even the same words of training – and am merely presenting a point for mutual agreement on necessary qualifications for safe handling of weapons. If all who have had training re-stated, simply and firmly, the basics, it would serve in a strong way to establish a very frim background of experience in SAFETY, to bolster all other arguments for ownership and carrying. As I said before: It is MY responsiblity, when, or if, carrying, to abide by Regulations where such have been made, or be properly excepted from them; just as it is every other individual's responsibility for him, or her, self. And, one of the ways I openly express my understanding of MY responsibility is to present my training in firearms safety. If that makes you feel as if your were being treated as a 5 year old, that's your problem.

theoldgrouch

I've forgotten how many postings I have previously written affirming the fundamental rights under the 2nd Amendment. I was making an observation concerning a period some 75 years, or so, ago when this was still very much in the “Old Wild West” mode of expression, which mode of expression became very much imbedded in the local Unconscious, and still pops up regularly, with such as Cheyenne Frontier Days, etc. I have never been “fooled into believing” what you call anti-gun hype. As you would know were you to read what I write, and attempt to comprehend what is written, rather than just get all petulantly insulted by what you don't seem to want to understand.. That the element – albeit many times more unconscious than conscious – of vestigal “Cowboys and indians” exists in the minds of many – both those who carry, and those who do not – is observable any time you go out to the National Western Stock Show, among other events that try to recapture some of the “Old Wild West” ethos, spirt, and presentation. That such a vestige of thought/emotion may also be ascribed to some of the rather over-demonstrative responses to positions on “gun control”, or “firearms regulation” items, is again, observable. And it is merely a fact of observance of such response(s), not an insult in any way, to note the presence of something that does have unique background in the local culture. For myself, I always had problems with the “game”, since I'm not only NOT a “cowboy” to begin with, I'm partly descended from the “other side” But that 's just a side issue.I did ask why you felt the need for a weapon. You have answered above. That's all there really is to that. Your reasons for something are yours. Just as other people's reasons for not having or wanting personally, or not having or wanting others to have or not have, are theirs. In some cases, reasons may be open to discussion, or to opposition. But, merely asking for a reason is a simple part of dialogue, from which one may decide to continue, or call a halt to discussion. As to the individual concept of “need”, that too is a part of discussion, which may lead to further exploration/expostion, or may be the place to cease discussion, as “need” is, again, not universal or absolute, but rather a personal matter of feelings. You don't know what I “need”, unless I state what it is, anymore than anyone else knows your “need” unless you are willing to state it.. I disagree with your statements concerning what I don't “need”, since they come merely from your own imagination; but, that's completely beside the point.You are taking a presentation on a very generalized observation, concerning a form of response to cultural uniqueness, far, Far, FAR too personally, and merely “insulting” yourself; since I have never said that anyone “IS a cowboy”, whether he, or she, carries or not. Besides which, I don't consider the designation “cowboy” to be insulting in the first place. As to “substance”, sonny, some 45+ years experience as a headshrinker has given me sufficient “substance” in the sociological/psychological observations I make.As to your last paragraph: At one time, Colorado was – more or less, ipso facto (without specific Statute) an “open carry” State. And, at that time, Yes. You would not have been “breaking any law” by coming onto the CSU campus with your six-shooter on your hip. (Though I wouldn't have recommended such behavior, since County Sheriffs were not known to be much in favor of it; and could hassle one – with the likes of “Distrubing the Peace”, and such Ordinances – if they were of a mind to; as a good many were.) However, it is not “according to me” that such is not the case today. Rather, it is according to subsequent Statutes, setting up the system of concealed carry of weapons, and those parts of the Statutes pertaining to what you call “gun-free zones”, especially schools. And, that's what you have to “live with” today, like it or not.So, get your State Rep, or Senator, to do what you want done to change matters. I have strong doubts any such bill would pass the Legislature today; but, nothing is stopping you from trying. And, additionally, there is always the route of Petition-Amendment/Ballot-Initiative.As to my remarks about gun safety: Again, I was speaking for myself. I take for granted that anyone carrying with a permit has similar background – even the same words of training – and am merely presenting a point for mutual agreement on necessary qualifications for safe handling of weapons. If all who have had training re-stated, simply and firmly, the basics, it would serve in a strong way to establish a very frim background of experience in SAFETY, to bolster all other arguments for ownership and carrying. As I said before: It is MY responsiblity, when, or if, carrying, to abide by Regulations where such have been made, or be properly excepted from them; just as it is every other individual's responsibility for him, or her, self. And, one of the ways I openly express my understanding of MY responsibility is to present my training in firearms safety. If that makes you feel as if your were being treated as a 5 year old, that's your problem.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...